The genetic information of most living organisms contains parasitic invaders known as transposable elements. These genetic sequences multiply by copying and pasting themselves through the genome, but this process can disrupt the activity of important genes and put the organism at risk.

How transposable elements proliferate in a population depends on the way organisms reproduce. If they simply clone themselves asexually, the selfish elements cannot spread between the different clones. If the organisms mate together their respective transposable elements get mixed, which helps the sequences to spread more easily and to potentially become more virulent. However, sexual reproduction also comes with mechanisms that keep transposable elements in check.

Bast, Jaron et al. took advantage of the fact that yeasts can reproduce with or without mating to explore whether sexual or asexual organisms are better at controlling the spread of transposable elements. The number of copies of transposable elements in the genomes of yeast grown sexually or asexually was assessed. The results showed that sexual populations kept constant numbers of selfish elements, while asexual organisms lost these genomic parasites over time. Simulations then revealed that this difference emerged because a defense gene that helps to delete transposable elements was spreading more quickly in the asexual group.

The work by Bast, Jaron et al. therefore suggests that sex is responsible for the evolutionary success of transposable elements, while asexual populations can discard these sequences over time. Sex therefore helps genetic parasites, somewhat similar to sexually transmitted diseases, to spread between individuals and remain virulent.

Self-replicating transposable elements (TEs) can occupy large fractions of genomes in organisms throughout the tree of life (reviewed in Hua-Van et al., 2011). Their overwhelming success is driven by their ability to proliferate independently of the host cell cycle via different self-copying mechanisms involving ‘cut-and-paste’ or ‘copy-and-paste’ systems. These mechanisms allow TEs to invade genomes in a similar way to parasites, despite generally not providing any advantage to the individual carrying them (Doolittle and Sapienza, 1980; Orgel and Crick, 1980). To the contrary, TEs generate deleterious effects in their hosts by promoting ectopic recombination and because most new TE insertions in coding or regulatory sequences disrupt gene functions (Finnegan, 1992; Montgomery et al., 1991).

Theory predicts that sexual reproduction can either facilitate or restrain the genomic accumulation of TEs, and it is currently unclear whether the expected net effect of sex on TE loads is positive or negative. Sexual reproduction can facilitate the accumulation of TEs because it allows TEs to colonise new genomes and spread throughout populations (Hickey, 1982; Zeyl et al., 1996). Because the colonisation of new genomes is more likely for active TEs, sexual reproduction should favour the evolution of highly active TEs (Charlesworth and Langley, 1986; Hickey, 1982), even though increased activity generates higher TE loads in the host genome. At the same time, sexual reproduction facilitates the evolution of host defences and increases the efficacy of purifying selection against deleterious TE copies by reducing selective interference among loci (Ågren and Wright, 2011; Arkhipova and Meselson, 2005; Crespi and Schwander, 2012; Wright and Finnegan, 2001). In the absence of sex, reduced purifying selection can thus result in the accumulation of TEs, unless TE copies get eliminated via excision at sufficiently high rates (Burt and Trivers, 2006; Dolgin and Charlesworth, 2006).

Genomic TE loads have been empirically estimated for natural populations of asexual and related sexual organisms, but no consistent difference emerges (Ågren et al., 2015; Bast et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2017; Szitenberg et al., 2016), probably because many confounding factors not related to reproductive mode such as hybridisation and polyploidisation can affect TE loads and mask the effect of sex (Arkhipova and Rodriguez, 2013; Hua-Van et al., 2011).

Here, to quantify whether the net effect of sexual reproduction on genomic TE loads is positive or negative, we study the evolution of genomic TE loads in experimental yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) populations generated in a previous study (McDonald et al., 2016). McDonald et al. maintained four sexual and four asexual strains originating from the same haploid ancestral strain (W303) under constant conditions over 1000 generations. For sexual strains, a mating event (meiosis) was induced every 90 generations. Sequencing of each strain was conducted at generation 0 and every 90 generations prior to mating (for details see Materials and methods, and McDonald et al., 2016). In the present study, we use the published Illumina data to quantify TE loads in each strain for each sequenced generation.

TEs in S. cerevisiae are well characterised (Carr et al., 2012; Castanera et al., 2016; Voytas and Boeke, 1992). S. cerevisiae TEs consist solely of ‘copy-and-paste’ elements that are flanked by long terminal repeats (LTRs) and are grouped into the families Ty1-Ty5 (Voytas and Boeke, 1992). The 12.2 Mb genome of the studied yeast strain comprises approximately 50 full-length, active Ty element copies, and 430 inactive ones (Carr et al., 2012). Inactive copies include truncated elements as well as remnants from TE excisions (i.e., solo-LTR formation; Carr et al., 2012). Excisions occur by intra-chromosomal recombination between the two flanking LTRs of a TE, and result in the removal of protein-coding genes that allow for transposition.

Using different computational approaches to quantify genomic TE loads in experimental yeast strains, we show that sex is required for the success of TEs, as TE loads decrease over time under asexual reproduction. For the first approach, we quantified total TE loads without distinguishing between active and inactive TEs. This was done by computing the fraction of reads that mapped to a curated S. cerevisiae TE library (see Materials and methods) for each yeast strain and sequenced generation. This analysis revealed that the total TE load in sexual strains remained constant over 1000 generations, but decreased in asexual strains over time (resulting in a total reduction of 23.5% after 1000 generations; generation effect p<0.001, reproductive mode effect p=0.081, and interaction between generation and mode p<0.001; permutation ANOVA, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). For the second approach, we focused on full-length TE copy insertions, because only those are active and can lead to increased genomic TE loads over time. Detecting specific TE insertions by aligning short-read data to a reference genome is difficult and associated with a detection bias towards TEs present in the reference genome. Moreover, because sequencing was done with population pools and not individual clones within populations, it is not possible to analyse turnover or activity of TEs within specific genomic backgrounds. Instead, we analysed the presence versus absence of specific TE insertions in each population over time. With a pipeline that combines different complementary approaches (Nelson et al., 2017, see Materials and methods), the available sequencing data allowed us to detect 24 out of the 50 full-length insertions that are present in the reference genome of the ancestral strain at the start of the experiment (generation 0). As with the first approach, we found that the number of (detectable) full-length TE copies remained constant in sexual yeast strains, but decreased in asexual strains over time (generation effect p=0.006, reproductive mode effect p=0.033, and interaction between generation and mode p<0.001; permutation ANOVA). In asexual strains, the estimated average number of full-length TEs decreased from approximately 50 to 41 over 1000 generations (Figure 1).

Figure 1 with 4 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

This decrease could be generated by either increased TE excision rates in asexual as compared to sexual yeast, reduced transposition rates, or a combination of both mechanisms. To evaluate the relative importance of the two mechanisms, we estimated the number of losses of TEs present in the ancestral yeast strain, as well as the number of novel insertions, at each assayed generation (Figure 2). These analyses revealed that ‘ancestral’ TE insertions are lost at a higher rate in asexual than sexual strains (generation effect p=0.002, reproductive mode effect p=0.027, and interaction between generation and mode p<0.001; permutation ANOVA), while we detected similar numbers of novel TE insertions (indicating similar transposition rates) under both reproductive modes (generation effect p=0.338, reproductive mode effect p=0.271, and interaction between generation and mode p=0.599; permutation ANOVA). Taken together, our empirical observations indicate that even very rare events of sex (here just 10 out of 990 reproduction events) are sufficient to maintain genomic TE loads, while asexuality results in the reduction of TE loads.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

The parallel reduction of TE loads in different asexual strains suggests that the evolution of reduced TE activity (the ratio of transposition to excision) in asexual strains influences genomic TE loads more strongly than purifying selection, which should act to reduce TE loads most effectively in sexual strains. To evaluate whether these findings are plausible, we tested whether the net loss of TEs under asexualitly is predicted by a simple model of TE dynamics. As explained above, different theoretical approaches have shown that both purifying selection and activity rate evolution can affect TE loads under sexual or asexual reproduction (Charlesworth and Langley, 1986; Dolgin and Charlesworth, 2006; Hickey, 1982). However, no theoretical study has considered TE load evolution under the joint effects of the different processes. To fill this gap, we extended the individual-level simulation program of Dolgin and Charlesworth (2006). This program allows to study the evolution of TE copy numbers in an asexual lineage as a function of TE activity (the joint effects of transposition and excision rates), as well as of the strength of selection against TE insertions, which depends on the fitness cost per TE insertion. To compare TE loads in sexual and asexual lineages, we first extended the program to include events of sexual reproduction and parameterised the simulations with empirically determined values from yeast (Blanc and Adams, 2004; Carr et al., 2012; Garfinkel et al., 2005). We ran individual-based simulations with a range of transposition rates, excision rates and selection coefficients with and without epistasis between TE copies as pertinent for yeast (see Supplementary file 2A).

For all simulations, TE loads in populations undergoing sex every 90 generations decreased faster than in asexual populations, contrary to our empirical observations. This occurs because sexual events generate variation among individuals in TE loads (and thus variation in fitness), which facilitates selection against deleterious TEs (see also Dolgin and Charlesworth, 2006). Different transposition rates under meiosis (sex) or mitosis (asex) did not affect this finding. Indeed, increased TE activity during meiosis only transiently increases TE loads in sexual strains. Because such activity also generates increased variation in TE loads (and therefore in fitness) among strains, the additional TE copies generated during meiosis are rapidly removed by purifying selection (Figure 1—figure supplement 3). In short, none of the simulations generated the empirically observed pattern of lower TE loads in asexual than sexual strains. In a second step, we therefore allowed TE activity rates to evolve over time, by introducing a modifier allele that increases excision rates. The allele has no direct fitness effect, so it can only be fixed in a population via genetic hitchhiking. In simulations that included the modifier allele, the modifier spreads rapidly to fixation in asexual strains, because it is associated with genomes that have fewer TE copies, and therefore have a higher relative fitness. As a consequence, TE activity rates decrease in asexual populations (Figure 1—figure supplement 4). By contrast, the modifier cannot spread as rapidly in sexual populations because recombination constantly breaks up the association between the modifier and less TE loaded backgrounds. By allowing for the evolution of TE activity rates in our simulations, we were able to identify parameter values representative for yeast that result in simulations with a very close fit to our empirical results (Figure 1B, Supplementary file 2B). These analyses thus corroborate our empirical findings that a likely mechanism driving genomic TE load reduction in asexual yeast strains is the rapid evolution of increased TE excision rates. A similar effect would be expected if our modifier acted on transposition rather than excision rates, since the net TE activity depends on the relative rates of transposition vs excision. However, our empirical results do not suggest major differences in transposition rates between sexual and asexual yeast strains. In combination with our findings that, in the absence of TE activity evolution, sexual strains always lose TEs faster than asexual ones, the empirical results are best explained by an increase in TE excision rates under asexuality (Figures 1 and 2).

Our study shows that sexual reproduction permits the maintenance of TEs in S. cerevisiae, while in its absence, TE loads decrease, likely via the evolution of TE activity rates. The findings are consistent with empirical findings of low TE activity in old asexuals (Bast et al., 2016) and the idea that TEs should evolve to be benign in asexual species, because the evolutionary interests of TEs and their host genome are aligned (Charlesworth and Langley, 1986). While the exact mechanisms causing TE activity change in the asexual yeast populations cannot be assessed in the empirical data, our simulations suggest that there is some form of TE defense mechanism (a ‘modifier locus’) that either segregates in the ancestral yeast strain used in the experiments or repeatedly appeared de novo during experimental evolution. Independently of the exact mechanism, we confirm that TE loads do not increase, but decrease, in asexual populations. This contrasts with the hypothesis that most asexual species are evolutionarily short lived because they are driven to extinction via negative consequences of accumulating TE copies (Arkhipova and Meselson, 2005). Instead, sex is at the root of the evolutionary success of parasitic TEs.

Raw read data of the experiment are available at SRA (BioProject identifier PRJNA308843). All data processing and analyses scripts as well as the simulator together with explanations are available at https://github.com/KamilSJaron/reproductive_mode_TE_dynamics (copy archived at https://github.com/elifesciences-publications/reproductive_mode_TE_dynamics).

1. 1. McDonald MJ
   2. Rice DP
   3. Desai MM

   (2016) NCBI BioProject

   ID PRJNA308843. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast).

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA308843/

1. 1. Ågren JA
   2. Greiner S
   3. Johnson MT
   4. Wright SI

   (2015) No evidence that sex and transposable elements drive genome size variation in evening primroses

   Evolution 69:1053–1062.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12627

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Ågren JA
   2. Wright SI

   (2011) Co-evolution between transposable elements and their hosts: a major factor in genome size evolution?

   Chromosome Research 19:777–786.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10577-011-9229-0

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Arkhipova I
   2. Meselson M

   (2005) Deleterious transposable elements and the extinction of asexuals

   BioEssays 27:76–85.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20159

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Arkhipova IR
   2. Rodriguez F

   (2013) Genetic and epigenetic changes involving (Retro)transposons in animal hybrids and polyploids

   Cytogenetic and Genome Research 140:295–311.

   https://doi.org/10.1159/000352069

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bast J
   2. Schaefer I
   3. Schwander T
   4. Maraun M
   5. Scheu S
   6. Kraaijeveld K

   (2016) No accumulation of transposable elements in asexual arthropods

   Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:697–706.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv261

   • Google Scholar
6. Software

   1. Bast J
   2. Jaron KS

   (2019) TE dynamics in yeasts with respect to reproduction mode, version 6187ab8

   GitHub.

   https://github.com/KamilSJaron/reproductive_mode_TE_dynamics
7. 1. Blanc V
   2. Adams J

   (2004) Ty1 insertions in Intergenic regions of the genome of transcribed by RNA polymerase III have no detectable selective effect

   FEMS Yeast Research 4:487–491.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S1567-1356(03)00199-5

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bolger AM
   2. Lohse M
   3. Usadel B

   (2014) Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for illumina sequence data

   Bioinformatics 30:2114–2120.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170

   • Google Scholar
9. Book

   1. Burt A
   2. Trivers R

   (2006)

   Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish Genetic Elements

   Cambridge: Belknapp Press.

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Carr M
    2. Bensasson D
    3. Bergman CM

    (2012) Evolutionary genomics of transposable elements in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    PLOS ONE 7:e50978.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050978

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Castanera R
    2. López-Varas L
    3. Borgognone A
    4. LaButti K
    5. Lapidus A
    6. Schmutz J
    7. Grimwood J
    8. Pérez G
    9. Pisabarro AG
    10. Grigoriev IV
    11. Stajich JE
    12. Ramírez L

    (2016) Transposable elements versus the fungal genome: impact on Whole-Genome architecture and transcriptional profiles

    PLOS Genetics 12:e1006108.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006108

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Charlesworth B
    2. Langley CH

    (1986)

    The evolution of self-regulated transposition of transposable elements

    Genetics 112:359–383.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Crespi B
    2. Schwander T

    (2012) Asexual evolution: do intragenomic parasites maintain sex?

    Molecular Ecology 21:3893–3895.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05638.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dolgin ES
    2. Charlesworth B

    (2006) The fate of transposable elements in asexual populations

    Genetics 174:817–827.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.060434

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Doolittle WF
    2. Sapienza C

    (1980) Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution

    Nature 284:601–603.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/284601a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Finnegan D

    (1992) Transposable elements

    Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2:861–867.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-437X(05)80108-X

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Garfinkel DJ
    2. Nyswaner KM
    3. Stefanisko KM
    4. Chang C
    5. Moore SP

    (2005) Ty1 copy number dynamics in Saccharomyces

    Genetics 169:1845–1857.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.104.037317

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Goffeau A
    2. Barrell BG
    3. Bussey H
    4. Davis RW
    5. Dujon B
    6. Feldmann H
    7. Galibert F
    8. Hoheisel JD
    9. Jacq C
    10. Johnston M
    11. Louis EJ
    12. Mewes HW
    13. Murakami Y
    14. Philippsen P
    15. Tettelin H
    16. Oliver SG

    (1996) Life with 6000 genes

    Science 274:546–567.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5287.546

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Hannon Laboratory

    (2010) FASTX-Toolkit

    FASTX-Toolkit, http://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/index.html.

    http://hannonlab.cshl.edu/fastx_toolkit/index.html

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hickey DA

    (1982)

    Selfish DNA: a sexually-transmitted nuclear parasite

    Genetics 101:519–531.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hua-Van A
    2. Le Rouzic A
    3. Boutin TS
    4. Filée J
    5. Capy P

    (2011) The struggle for life of the genome's selfish architects

    Biology Direct 6:19.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-6-19

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Jiang X
    2. Tang H
    3. Ye Z
    4. Lynch M

    (2017) Insertion polymorphisms of mobile genetic elements in sexual and asexual populations of Daphnia pulex

    Genome Biology and Evolution 9:evw302.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evw302

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Kofler R
    2. Gómez-Sánchez D
    3. Schlötterer C

    (2016) PoPoolationTE2: comparative population genomics of transposable elements using Pool-Seq

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:2759–2764.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw137

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Lang GI
    2. Rice DP
    3. Hickman MJ
    4. Sodergren E
    5. Weinstock GM
    6. Botstein D
    7. Desai MM

    (2013) Pervasive genetic hitchhiking and clonal interference in forty evolving yeast populations

    Nature 500:571–574.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12344

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. Preprint

    1. Li H

    (2013) Aligning sequence reads clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM

    arXiv.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. McDonald MJ
    2. Rice DP
    3. Desai MM

    (2016) Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution

    Nature 531:233–236.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17143

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Montgomery EA
    2. Huang SM
    3. Langley CH
    4. Judd BH

    (1991)

    Chromosome rearrangement by ectopic recombination in Drosophila melanogaster: genome structure and evolution

    Genetics 129:1085–1098.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Nelson MG
    2. Linheiro RS
    3. Bergman CM

    (2017) McClintock: an integrated pipeline for detecting transposable element insertions in Whole-Genome shotgun sequencing data

    G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 7:2763–2778.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.117.043893

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Orgel LE
    2. Crick FHC

    (1980) Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite

    Nature 284:604–607.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/284604a0

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Quinlan AR
    2. Hall IM

    (2010) BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features

    Bioinformatics 26:841–842.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Smit A
    2. Hubley R
    3. Green P

    (2015)

    RepeatMasker Open-4.0

    RepeatMasker Open-4.0.

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Szitenberg A
    2. Cha S
    3. Opperman CH
    4. Bird DM
    5. Blaxter ML
    6. Lunt DH

    (2016) Genetic drift, not life history or RNAi, determine Long-Term evolution of transposable elements

    Genome Biology and Evolution 8:2964–2978.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evw208

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Voytas DF
    2. Boeke JD

    (1992) Yeast retrotransposon revealed

    Nature 358:717.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/358717a0

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Wright S
    2. Finnegan D

    (2001) Genome evolution: sex and the transposable element

    Current Biology 11:R296–R299.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00168-3

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Zeyl C
    2. Bell G
    3. Green DM

    (1996)

    Sex and the spread of retrotransposon Ty3 in experimental populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

    Genetics 143:1567-77.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Zhang J
    2. Kobert K
    3. Flouri T
    4. Stamatakis A

    (2014) PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR

    Bioinformatics 30:614–620.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt593

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Thank you for submitting your article "Asexual reproduction drives the reduction of transposable element load" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, including Graham Coop as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Diethard Tautz as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Brian Charlesworth (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

The reviewers and I appreciated the analysis and results. I have included the two reviewers' comments below.

Please respond point by point to the reviewer comments below. The major comments that definitely need addressing are:

1) Moderate the causal language concerning selection and increase in excision rate, the evidence for this is indirect at best. See reviewer 1.

2) Reviewer 2 raises a concern about how the non-independence of temporal samples from the same population replicate are dealt with. One suggestion from the reviewer/editor discussion was to just use the difference between the initial and end points. The authors more generally need to be clearer about the analysis performed, e.g. give the formulae for the linear models run.

3) Reviewer 2 raises some questions about full-length and non-reference TEs that need to be addressed.

4) The McDonald experiment is of pooled sequencing, thus you are averaging over population-frequencies of TE at each locus. While TE-calling from the short-read data, and asexuality, it might be very hard to do anything with the frequency of TEs at each locus I thought it would be helpful to more fully acknowledge that the current analysis (I think) confounds the number TE loci in the genome and the frequency of the TE at each locus.

Reviewer #2:

This paper presents an interesting analysis of the population dynamics of transposable elements (TEs) in long-term experimental populations of budding yeast, comparing sexual and asexual populations. The data are analysed in the light of simulations, which extend an earlier study by Dolgin and Charlesworth, 2007, to match more closely the properties of the yeast populations. The overall conclusion is that excisions of the LTR retrotransposons (presumably by recombination between the LTRs; this could have been investigated) cause a decline in TE copy number in the asexuals, whereas the sexuals seem to stay more or less in equilibrium.

This is one of the few studies of this type of problem, and illustrates the difficulty of making generalisations about the fates of TEs in populations with different mating systems, as the authors make clear. I have to take their bioinformatic analyses on trust, as I lack the relevant expertise, but they seem to have done a thorough job of these. Overall, this is a nice paper.

My only criticism is that they emphasis the possible role of selection for an increase in excision rate in explaining their results, but I could not see that they have presented any solid evidence that this has actually happened. In an asexual population, all kinds of hitchhiking will be going on, so any increase in frequency of a modifier of excision rate could simply be due to such an effect, although of course one would not expect consistency across replicate populations. They need to make it clearer what the evidence for such selection actually is; it's not obvious to me that there has been an increase in excision rates.

Reviewer #3:

Bast et al. address how sexual reproduction affects transposable element (TE) accumulation in paired sexual and asexual lineages of yeast. As noted in the manuscript, much of the literature surrounding the issue of the impact of sex on TE accumulation is confounded by deeper evolutionary timescales, different effective population sizes, and changes in mating system. Utilizing existing data of yeast experimental evolution lines to get around these issues, Bast et al. find that TEs are spread through sex, and driven towards extinction in asex lines. The manuscript is clearly written and easy to follow. Specific comments below.

My understanding from a brief glance at the McDonald et al., 2016 paper these data come from suggests that the data represent eight separate lineages, such that each point should be connected through the time series in Figures 1 and 2. I'm not familiar enough with the statistics involved, but if each is an independent lineage through time, does this need to be included in analyses? It also seems that some of the uncertainty in TE genotyping could be addressed using replicate lineages – if a full-length copy is 'excised,' we don't expect to see it again in later generations of that replicate.

- Main text, fifth paragraph: Throughout the manuscript, the use of the term 'excision' might confuse readers more familiar with different types of TEs. For DNA transposons (cut and paste), this refers to a complete or near complete removal via transposition. In this manuscript, 'excision' is used for solo LTR formation via unequal recombination. To avoid confusion, perhaps 'solo LTR formation' could be used as an alternative to excision.

- Main text, fifth paragraph: It would be useful to add that solo LTR formation (excision) removes the protein coding genes that allow transposition, to make it clear why we care about full-length copies.

- Main text, sixth paragraph: I am a bit confused on the numbers of full length TEs identified. The second to last sentence states only 24 of 50 full length copies can be detected, but the last sentence states asex decreases to 41 full length copies. Although identifying TEs is really difficult, I am concerned that there could be deletions or excisions in these 26 non-assayable copies that overwhelm the signal observed. Could a total count of transposition-competent copies be tracked through time by something akin to the first coverage based approach (like Figure 1—figure supplement 1), using internal protein coding regions? Or is there a way to explain what's happening with these non-assayable copies? Are they always the same copies in every individual?

Doesn't a constant number of non-reference copies through time (Figure 2B) mean that there is an increased transposition rate in asex through time? To me it feels like since both the asex full length copies (presumably the active copies) and reference copies are being removed through time, this means the per-element transposition rate is going up. Again, this could be addressed by identifying how many non-reference TEs are the same non-reference TE copies (at the same loci) through time (although maybe the low coverage of some samples precludes this?). But it's hard for me to think in residuals, so maybe this isn't impacting things, and the slightly more negative trend in asex in 2B reflects the effect of a higher excision rate on generating fewer new copies.

- Subsection “Modelling”: I need a little more information on the TE annotation. How are full length copies being defined from the RepeatMasker output? Those which contain any internal protein coding sequence? A length cutoff relative to the reference db?

Please respond point by point to the reviewer comments below. The major comments that definitely need addressing are:

1) Moderate the causal language concerning selection and increase in excision rate, the evidence for this is indirect at best. See reviewer 1.

We changed the language accordingly throughout the manuscript.

2) Reviewer 2 raises a concern about how the non-independence of temporal samples from the same population replicate are dealt with. One suggestion from the reviewer/editor discussion was to just use the difference between the initial and end points. The authors more generally need to be clearer about the analysis performed, e.g. give the formulae for the linear models run.

The strain replication is taken into account in our model, as we included generation in the permutation ANOVA. We clarified this in the text and the formulae are now given in the manuscript. Additionally, we calculated the statistics for start and end points. For details, please see concern one of reviewer three below.

3) Reviewer 2 raises some questions about full-length and non-reference TEs that need to be addressed.

Detailed replies to these two questions are given at the reviewer’s comments below.

4) The McDonald experiment is of pooled sequencing, thus you are averaging over population-frequencies of TE at each locus. While TE-calling from the short-read data, and asexuality, it might be very hard to do anything with the frequency of TEs at each locus I thought it would be helpful to more fully acknowledge that the current analysis (I think) confounds the number TE loci in the genome and the frequency of the TE at each locus.

We added clarifications to the manuscript. See also the detailed reply to this comment at the section of reviewer three.

Thank you again for your constructive comments.

Reviewer #2:

[…] My only criticism is that they emphasis the possible role of selection for an increase in excision rate in explaining their results, but I could not see that they have presented any solid evidence that this has actually happened. In an asexual population, all kinds of hitchhiking will be going on, so any increase in frequency of a modifier of excision rate could simply be due to such an effect, although of course one would not expect consistency across replicate populations. They need to make it clearer what the evidence for such selection actually is; it's not obvious to me that there has been an increase in excision rates.

We rephrased the wording accordingly throughout the manuscript to avoid suggesting a strong implication of selection.

Reviewer #3:

[…] My understanding from a brief glance at the McDonald et al., 2016 paper these data come from suggests that the data represent eight separate lineages, such that each point should be connected through the time series in Figures 1 and 2. I'm not familiar enough with the statistics involved, but if each is an independent lineage through time, does this need to be included in analyses? It also seems that some of the uncertainty in TE genotyping could be addressed using replicate lineages – if a full-length copy is 'excised,' we don't expect to see it again in later generations of that replicate.

The strain replication is taken into account in our model, as we included generation in the permutation ANOVA, and there is only one data point per strain per time. We focused on the generation effect, because we are interested in the temporal dynamics of TE loads. We did not separate the strains in the graphics to correspond with the underlying statistics.

We clarified this now by adding the ANOVA formula to the Materials and methods, which was previously only shown in the github repository. See the last paragraph of the subsection “Specific transposable element insertions”.

Additionally, to address the issue, we calculated statistics of a paired-test of the start (generation 90) and end-points (generation 990) per lineage/strain: Sexuals ​P​ = 0.84; Asexuals ​P​ = 0.03.

- Main text, fifth paragraph: Throughout the manuscript, the use of the term 'excision' might confuse readers more familiar with different types of TEs. For DNA transposons (cut and paste), this refers to a complete or near complete removal via transposition. In this manuscript, 'excision' is used for solo LTR formation via unequal recombination. To avoid confusion, perhaps 'solo LTR formation' could be used as an alternative to excision.

Indeed, this might be confusing. We added clarifications to the Introduction (main text, fifth paragraph).

- Main text, fifth paragraph: It would be useful to add that solo LTR formation (excision) removes the protein coding genes that allow transposition, to make it clear why we care about full-length copies.

We added the clarifications (main text, fifth paragraph). Thank you for helping to make the manuscript more clear.

- Main text, sixth paragraph: I am a bit confused on the numbers of full length TEs identified. The second to last sentence states only 24 of 50 full length copies can be detected, but the last sentence states asex decreases to 41 full length copies. Although identifying TEs is really difficult, I am concerned that there could be deletions or excisions in these 26 non-assayable copies that overwhelm the signal observed. Could a total count of transposition-competent copies be tracked through time by something akin to the first coverage based approach (like Figure 1—figure supplement 1), using internal protein coding regions? Or is there a way to explain what's happening with these non-assayable copies? Are they always the same copies in every individual?

We know that the ancestral reference strain has 50 full length copies. With the insertion detection method (McClintock), we can only identify 24 in the starting strains (generation 0, which should be about 50). These are not necessarily the same in the following generations. This is because with illumina data it is very hard to identify all insertions and not possible to track them through time. This is why we take the slope of the linear regression to estimate the loss from the original 50 copies. Like this, we can compare it to the simulations.

Additionally, our first approach estimates total TE content, using the fraction of mappable reads that map to the TE copies (including both internal coding and flanking LTR regions), is independent of the need to detect specific insertions and gives very similar results (slopes; Figure 1—figure supplement 1). This approach does not allow for discriminating specific insertions or truncated TE copies (which can still include internal coding regions). However, this approach is representative of mostly losing internal regions, as both internal and LTR were included in the TE library, such that loss of internal regions should make a bigger difference (solo LTRs still covered by reads).

Doesn't a constant number of non-reference copies through time (Figure 2B) mean that there is an increased transposition rate in asex through time? To me it feels like since both the asex full length copies (presumably the active copies) and reference copies are being removed through time, this means the per-element transposition rate is going up. Again, this could be addressed by identifying how many non-reference TEs are the same non-reference TE copies (at the same loci) through time (although maybe the low coverage of some samples precludes this?). But it's hard for me to think in residuals, so maybe this isn't impacting things, and the slightly more negative trend in asex in 2b reflects the effect of a higher excision rate on generating fewer new copies.

These are very interesting questions, but unfortunately, we cannot disentangle whether there is faster TE turnover in each sexual genomic background, or the same TE insertions are maintained through time with the data available in the study. This is because pooled sequencing lowers the probability of TE detection in specific individuals, such that we cannot analyse turnover or activity of specific elements in specific genomic backgrounds. What we analysed is the presence of TE insertions at a given generation, meaning they are present in enough genotypes in the population to be picked up in relatively low-coverage illumina sequencing. We clarified this in the Results (main text, sixth paragraph).

- Subsection “Modelling”: I need a little more information on the TE annotation. How are full length copies being defined from the RepeatMasker output? Those which contain any internal protein coding sequence? A length cutoff relative to the reference db?

We identified full-length LTR elements based on the TE insertion length information from the mcClintock output, that was filtered by a custom script to collect all information from the various McClintock output files. These include both internal coding sequences and flanking LTR regions. See subsection “Specific transposable element insertions”, last paragraph.

Author details

1. Jens Bast

   Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Kamil S Jaron

   For correspondence

   mail@jensbast.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0017-3860

2. Kamil S Jaron

   1. Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
   2. Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Jens Bast

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1470-5450

3. Donovan Schuseil

   Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Denis Roze

   1. UMI3614 Evolutionary Biology and Ecology of Alga, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Roscoff, France
   2. Station Biologique de Roscoff, Sorbonne Université, Roscoff, France

   Contribution

   Software, Investigation, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Tanja Schwander

   Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

• 2,564

  Page views

• 293

  Downloads

• 26

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.